About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
. and last week alone we saw it from colin powell, brian williams and president obama himself. colin powell went on the sunday show talking about the dark vein of intolerance that was running throughout the republican party. what evidence did he provide for that assertion? we are not left wing. we don't believe in anthropogenic climate change or we don't believe there should be redistribution of wealth or we don't believe in obamacare. if we would just move to the left that would make us not racist. colin powell above all should know how not raise our party is considering selling in our party were considering supporting him despite his liberalism in 1996 for presidential run and secretary of state under president bush obviously, somebody who is treated well by the republican party but that didn't stop him anyway because now colin powell is on the left and that means we are the bad guys. president obama did in his inaugural address just last week also, there's a peculiar line in his speech where he said absolutism is not printable and name calling is not discussion. he then proceeded to spen
. a granular level in which the attitude from the obama administration has been we love the institution. we have got our own sort of thing going on. i think it's a very open question at this point. which of the two ambassadors by implications, which of the two administrations is actually sized up and sorted of priced the u.n. more accurately. the one that engages with it in order to sort of really make sure that it doesn't do anything the u.s. doesn't like or one which apparently on the surface has more love for it. at the same time it's disengaged. it's not fair for ambassador rice. her engagement is where it should be. she's living day and night in the accident occurty council that's where she should be. i think that those probably warfare criticism during the first two to three years of the first barack obama term. >> host: when has the u.s. sought u.n. legitimacy? >> guest: most of the time as a per let to actions that it was planning on taking anyway. so in iraq, we saw legitimacy for something the entire world knew we were going do no matter what. i would say that the u.s. seeks a les
, you did have this backlash against the government in general, against president obama, present bush left office shortly after they started. against the democratic party more generally, against the federal reserve. against keynesian economics, i am prepared to defend if anyone would like to ask about that. this was encapsulated to me by two events that kind of book ended the backlash period. my favorite cartoon from the crisis appeared in the new yorker around march of 2009, i think. and it showed a page that was set in medieval courtyard, and the king's head is on the chopping block. the page runs in and says, government is part of the solution, not part of the problem. and that lasted about two or three months. after that, people started thinking that the government was part of the problem. when it's book ended, it was appended with the 2010 elections. which is really angry at him cummins, people that voted for t.a.r.p. and it resulted in the biggest turn of the republican party ever. it was this angle that i was talking about. as i take a few more minutes, is that okay? okay. very
the system. we run a risk in deciding if the obama administration has been tempted to say we don't want to be the hegemonic provider of security at these public goods to the world. let this be another big player at the u.n., but another belly up to the bar player at the u.n. in turtle bay. let's let the collector worry about it. they will worry about it and waste damaging to us. the most important thing is that the u.s. doesn't understand a guarantee system as an act or from the outside, the consequences going to be a scramble among scared and worried racing great powers who we all should fear we come to in south china sea. post rss if you were the last two u.s. ambassadors to the u.n. >> host: the last two ambassadors. well, here's the thing. john bolton was excoriated as someone who despise the u.n. that you could chop off the top seven or 10 stories that no one would ever notice there at its headquarters. >> host: do you agree with that statement? >> guest: i agree about 80%. as somebody said, i've actually found found it quite conciliatory and the message is american liberals need t
of the obama administration which did, in fact, raise the deficit. we all know that deficits are bad things. bigger deaf sets are -- deficits are bad, other things equal, but other things were not remotely close, and there was a cogent rationale for a stimulus package of that size and maybe even for a bigger one. the biggest message of the book to me as the author is this paradox that there were massive government interventions induced and caused by the fact that the private markets ran amok. the private markets that went off the track, the government came in not perfectly, but pretty effectively to try to put things back on track. and yet at the end of the day we witnessed -- and you've all witnessed it as i have -- this quite sharp backlash against, quote, big government in the united states. now, americans have never liked big government. you call anything big government, and americans will be against it reflexively. but there was a reason for the government interventions. it was a market failure in the financial world the likes of which we've not seen since the 1930s. and if we had done
with emerson's and which now the obama administration is trying to take a step further. the clinton administration privatized this in the processing, animals are slaughtered and another step where they are cut up and processed so in the reprocessing there has been the privatized system that we have done a lot of work showing how dangerous it is. the obama administration wants to increase this program especially for poultry. it would mean more than 200 birds a minute are being slaughtered in a plant. that is not a misstatement. 200 birds a minute. there is no way there can be any inspection of these carcasses and these are immigrant workers, extremely dangerous work. imagine both hands get sliced. all sorts of horrible injuries and because of all the contamination from salmonella you can never eat another piece of chicken. they get the chicken into chemicals, things like corn and sodium phosphate. that really over originated with the corn -- the clinton administration. a lengthy answer. i don't know how much time we have. >> what is the mandate of the usda? where did go wrong and wha
, the obama administration decided to reassign those defendants to a military commission at guantanamo bay. but through that monthslong controversy there wasn't much exploration of what a military commission at guantanamo bay actually is. the debate pretty much, pretty much, pretty much boiled down to military courts are tough, civilian courts presumably are weaker, and given a choice about who you'd want to deal with alleged terrorists and enemies of the united states, well, it seems like you'd want the tough guys to deal with them. and there was not a lot of discussion about what military commissions are, how they operate, who runs them, those sorts of questions which i think are important for americans to consider when deciding whether this is an experiment that we want to continue or expand or at or drop in the years going forward. so this book is really a story of the development of this project as told through the, a number of vims involved in it -- individuals involved in it, people some who were policymakers at very high levels of government, some are judges. but mainly it's about
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7